Random thoughts on almost anything and everything, with an emphasis on defense, intelligence, politics and national security matters..providing insight for the non-cleared world since 2005.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Gutting Airpower

In our newest article for Examiner.com, we look at the impact of the Gates defense budget on airpower. Between capping production of the F-22 and C-17 (and eliminating funding for such programs as CSAR-X and the next generation bomber), it's a very ugly picture, indeed.

13 comments:

I am amazed on how many people have told me that cancelling the F-22 is good because "President Obama says the F-35 is better" or "President Obama says the F-22 is Obsolete".

How is it that people are that thick? Or Do they just want to use the president as a excuse of willful ignorance. Meanwhile our airframes are aging, and other countries such as Russia and China and even the Europeans are developing new aircraft.

Quentin Cromelin and David Sullivan exposed how the Soviets attained strategic parity in 1979 and overwhelming strategic superiority by the early 1980's. Had the CIA not discredited Golitsyn, this never would have been allowed to happen. Had the KGB not had moles within the CIA, Golitsyn would never have been discredited, and we would not continuously be unilaterally disarming.

Had Golitsyn not been sabotaged by KGB agents within the CIA, the Kremlin would not now be in control of our military budget.

What is the future aircraft for close air support (the role the A-10 was supposed to have retired from a decade ago)?

It seems like all but a handful of our active airframes can be found represented in various air & space museums; this cannot be healthy. All but a handful of our key designs are a generation old, and quite a few (e.g. B-52) are TWO generations old. They were great designs but eventually enemies catch up (usually without one realizing it). And that's just the design side - I think some actual aircraft are older than the mandatory retirement age of their pilots.

If one wants to stimulate the economy, building war machinery is an historically-proven method. And it has the benefit of retaining existing intellectual and manufacturing capacity as well as encouraging new minds to enter the field. Beats the heck out of make-work jobs like re-doing environmental impact assessments.

Had the CIA not discredited Golitsyn, this never would have been allowed to happen.Golitsyn systematically discredited himself with the assistance of James Jesus Angleton. Angleton, in turn, was introduced into the business of counterintelligence by . . . Kim Philby.

Golitsyn was one tine of the trident that shut down the CIA's HUMINT operations in the 1960s. (The other two were Nosenko and Angleton.)

Ken, before I forget to mention it, did you know that U.S. servicemen holding the rank of seargent were the top targets for recruitment by the intelligence agencies of the Soviet bloc? I mention that because I couldn't help but notice you list yourself as a former seargent. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

Now, about your attempts to smear great men...

Did you know that the ideologically-driven KGB agent Kim Philby was assigned to meet with Angleton once a week in order that intelligence information be shared between the U.S. and England? This isn't to say, of course, that Angleton wasn't deceived by Philby, for he surely was, as were the British government and intelligence services. Twice now you have interjected their association, and if it's your contention that Angleton was also a KGB agent, then go ahead and say so. Amuse me. Frank Church, a probable KGB asset himself, is no doubt chortling in his grave.I also want to mention that I find it bizarre that you would state that Angleton, Golitsyn, and Nosenko were responsible for the decline of HUMINT afforts. Totally bizarre. Try and explain yourself if you like, but really you ought to just retract such a ridiculous statement.

You stated elsewhere that you're inclined to believe that Nosenko was a false defector, and since only someone with the intelligence of an O.J. juror would believe otherwise, I must say it's nice to hear that you lean that way.

Golitsyn discredited himself with the help of angleton, eh? Ken, you make no sense. Are you ignorant, or is it something else?

I agree with Glenmore that investment in defense is better than make work projects. The question of which defense projects is what has been decided?

Well I think that we need to be focused on winning the wars at hand and not 'next waritis', within reason.

If Nord Korea where to incur into Korea couldn't we burn them off at the DMZ with tactical nukes?

On other notes: Though I drink coffee these 'Tea Parties' make a lot of sense and are welcome in other parts of the world as well. The people behind this endeavor are from all across the political spectrum this is what we need. Pajama TV etc. there is much clarity in these folks and when I think of the first 'Tea Party' and what followed well it warms my heart and maybe we can unify old differences from when we were fighting off Napoleon. Zarcozy sounds like a good guy. There are real Global applications here I think. You can count this loyal subject of Her Majesty in and with out there being divided loyalties; she did attend the Reagan Inaugural Ball.

I heard there were 125,000 riots in China this year because of the slavery that is imposed upon the people there and it looks like there are Russian on Russianattacks going on in Russia. (40 million Russians consider Stalin to be a hero.)

'Confute the enemy with bitter mockery'. Interesting times we live in.

I also learned that the current President has spent more than the previous 43 Presidents combined!!! Plus something about insurrection Legislation and Barack Obama not even an American citizen. ?

This covers some things that you have been mentioning and some that I have not heard before. KateLange

Did you know that the ideologically-driven KGB agent Kim Philby was assigned to meet with Angleton once a week in order that intelligence information be shared between the U.S. and England?Yes, I understand that was the cover story. Of course, by that point, Philby was more or less writing his own job description, so of course he'd set up something that would allow him to gather all kinds of intel from one of his star recruits.

This isn't to say, of course, that Angleton wasn't deceived by Philby, for he surely was, as were the British government and intelligence services.Philby supposedly taught Angleton the art of counterintelligence. Now, Philby had a reputation for being very good at counterintelligence work--but only because he was getting a great deal of chickenfeed from the NKVD.

You'd think a very talented counterintelligence operator like Angleton would have noticed.

Twice now you have interjected their association, and if it's your contention that Angleton was also a KGB agent, then go ahead and say so.I am saying so. The head of counterintelligence is a prime target for any hostile intelligence agency; Angleton had a long-running association with Philby where he SHOULD have picked up on Philby's treason; and, at a critical juncture in the investigation that resulted in Philby's defection, he pronounced Golitsyn and his information genuine.

Golitsyn's biggest bombshell was a claim that Harold Wilson was a Soviet agent. That claim took the heat off of Philby and gave him two more years in place. Now, maybe that's just a coincidence.

I also want to mention that I find it bizarre that you would state that Angleton, Golitsyn, and Nosenko were responsible for the decline of HUMINT afforts.Absolutely. Angleton used Golitsyn and Nosenko as reasons to veto any effort to recruit an agent. Every single contact made by anyone in the CIA was obviously a disinformation agent.

Intelligence agencies live and die by recruiting. Angleton "just happened" to shut down all of Langley's efforts to recruit.

He also "accidentally" blew several CIA assets, most notably one working in Norwegian intelligence. THAT little contretemps severely hindered US-Norwegian intelligence cooperation just as the Soviet Navy was making the transition from a coastal force to a real threat to US maritime supremacy.

I know, it's just a coincidence. There are so many coincidences that surround Angleton's activities that just happened to support Soviet endeavours that I'm forced to conclude that they were not coincidental at all.

I'm not the kind of guy who wants to sit down and do a line-by-line argument-rebuttal kind of thing, but I can see that you are. I'm not into writing research papers or pretending I'm in a courtroom. What I'm into is finding out where you're coming from so I can show you the error of your ways.

Since neither of us were involved in the things we're discussing, we each have to rely on the accounts of others who either were directly involved, interviewed and researched those who were directly involved, or at the very least have devoted a lot of time and effort to research. This is true not only in the present case, but of course in the study of all history. I have no doubt that you agree with me on this point.

I've thrown some names around and that should let you know where I get my information.

I'll tell you something right now, Ken. I don't think you know what you're talking about. I think that once upon a time you might have asked someone you worked with about this Golitsyn guy, and he or she assured you the guy was a crackpot. I don't think you've read a word written by Golitsyn. I think you've relied on people you respect, whether personally or because they're respected and or promoted by others in the field, and your conclusions are theirs, and they are worthless.

I don't take the high road, Ken. I call it like I see it. Right now I'm willing to believe that you're a regular guy who's been told a version of history that you have no reason to disbelieve because it is, after all, the universally accepted version, and you view me as a lunatic. That's fine. It's better than the alternative.

Tell me, Ken, who gave you your version of history? Who is responsible for you believing as you do? Names, Ken. I need names. With the names we can get somewhere.

This is no academic exercise, Ken. If the issue weren't so vitally important I wouldn't bother with it or you. But it is and I do.

On a side note, you said in another post that Nosenko was a false defector. The CIA, however, officially declared him bona fide. Why would the CIA do such a thing, Ken? And why would they put him on the payroll?

Why didn't the CIA foresee the Soviet "collapse"? Golitsyn predicted it, you know. He predicted that and a lot more. And you know what, Ken? He was right.

Do you want to know how they did it? Go to Youtube and watch the Bezmenov videos. Go to Scribd and read New Lies for Old. You'll start to get it.

I think that once upon a time you might have asked someone you worked with about this Golitsyn guy, and he or she assured you the guy was a crackpot.Nothing could be further from the truth. I've read extensively about intelligence matters most of my adult life, and I've formed my own opinions.

I don't think you've read a word written by Golitsyn.Wrong.

I think you've relied on people you respect, whether personally or because they're respected and or promoted by others in the field, and your conclusions are theirs, and they are worthless.Their conclusions are not mine.

I don't take the high road, Ken. I call it like I see it. Right now I'm willing to believe that you're a regular guy who's been told a version of history that you have no reason to disbelieve because it is, after all, the universally accepted version, and you view me as a lunatic. That's fine. It's better than the alternative.As I've pointed out, I don't accept the official version.

On a side note, you said in another post that Nosenko was a false defector. The CIA, however, officially declared him bona fide. Why would the CIA do such a thing, Ken? And why would they put him on the payroll?Because Angleton had supported Golitsyn in an utterly ham-handed fashion. It was less about any merits (neither of them had any) and far more about personalities and politics--which was Angleton's intent the entire time.

Why didn't the CIA foresee the Soviet "collapse"?Because the CIA didn't understand that in totalitarian societies, EVERYBODY tells the bosses what they want to hear. They thought they had accurate economic data. It was as good as anything else the USSR produced--specifically, utterly worthless if it wasn't intended to kill people, and only roughly good at killing people if it was.

Crommelin's mistake was to think that WW3, had it come, would be WW2 with no significant changes except the explosions would be bigger.

Forty years of technological change had done a LOT to change how navies fought, for example (and that was the most painful aspect of Crommelin and Sullivan--even as a young Lance Coconut I had a much better grasp of how modern naval power worked than a retired USN O-6 did).

Golitsyn predicted it, you know.After reading Crommelin and Sullivan's book in early 1986, so did I. I understood that there was no way in hell a nation as visibly poor as the USSR could afford the military infrastructure they'd saddled themselves with.

He predicted that and a lot more. And you know what, Ken? He was right.Being "right" in the sense of predicting what should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer doesn't mean that someone's "right" about what's driving the events in question.

Ken, I'm surprised they didn't make you CIA Director.I'm utterly unsurprised that you don't know what the CIA Director actually does.

He isn't the foremost producer of intelligence data--he is simply the guy who runs a very large organization, roughly akin to a corporate CEO. (Trust me, Steve Ballmer isn't the best software coder on the Microsoft campus.)